Planning application · Harrow
PL/0373/26.
18 Paines Close, Pinner, Harrow, HA5 3BN
Householder at 18 Paines Close, Pinner, Harrow, HA5 3BN, received 11 Feb 2026 — refused on 24 Apr 2026 (delegated, Agnes Wanja).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationHarrow profile →
Refused
Outcome
24 Apr 2026
10 wks
Decision time
2 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
19
Documents
19 linked
—
Objections
not captured
No
Appeal
none recorded
Record from the Harrow planning register as captured; documents link to the council's own files. Nearby applications are context, not part of this application.
Application
What is it?
First floor side extension including alterations to roof; rear dormer; installation of two rooflights in side roofslope; external alterations
Reference
PL/0373/26
Type
Householder
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
HA5 3BN
Ward
Council
Received
11 Feb 2026
Target date
24 Apr 2026
Decision date
24 Apr 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decision Issued
Council register
Reference
PL/0373/26
Type
Householder
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
HA5 3BN
Ward
Council
Received
11 Feb 2026
Target date
24 Apr 2026
Decision date
24 Apr 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decision Issued
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Documents open on the Harrow portal. View the application page ↗
Decision
What happened?
Refused on 24 Apr 2026, delegated decision by Agnes Wanja — 10 weeks from submission (2 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
11 Feb 2026
Application received
24 Apr 2026
Statutory target date
24 Apr 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Agnes Wanja
11 Feb 2026
Application received
24 Apr 2026
Statutory target date
24 Apr 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Agnes Wanja
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
- Option 1: The proposed development, notwithstanding amendments to reduce its bulk and height and the
introduction of a pitched roof, would result in an incongruous and poorly integrated form of development that
would be at odds with the character and proportions of the existing dwelling. The pitched roof, although
intended to reduce visual impact, would appear awkward and unbalanced and would fail to relate satisfactorily
to the host building.
The development would remain visually dominant and would continue to erode the important first floor visual
gap between adjoining properties, harming the established pattern of development, sense of spaciousness
and character of the area. Furthermore, the proposal would continue to compromise key views through this
gap towards the Grade II* listed Church of St John the Baptist and the Pinner High Street Conservation Area,
resulting in less than substantial harm to the significance of these heritage assets, as previously identified by
the Planning Inspector in the dismissed appeal (Ref: APP/M5450/W/25/3366424).
The proposal is therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) Policies D3 and HC1 of
the London Plan (2021), and Policies GR1 and HE1 of Harrow Local Plan (2021-2041)
2
- Option 2: The proposed development, notwithstanding amendments to reduce its overall bulk and height,
remains unacceptable as it would result in an Incongruous form of development that fails to respect the
character and appearance of the host dwelling and the established spatial pattern of development within the
street. The proposal would continue to erode the important first floor visual gap between buildings,
undermining the sense of spaciousness that characterises the area and contributing to a perception of
enclosure. Furthermore, the scale, massing and roof form would remain poorly integrated with the existing
dwelling, resulting in a development that would appear disproportionate and harmful within the street scene.
In addition, the proposal would fail to preserve the setting of nearby designated heritage assets, particularly
the Grade II* listed Church of St John the Baptist and the Pinner High Street Conservation Area. By
diminishing key views through the existing gap between properties, the development would continue to cause
less than substantial harm to the significance of these heritage assets, harm which was previously identified
and afforded considerable weight by the Planning Inspector in the dismissed appeal (Ref:
APP/M5450/W/25/3366424). The limited public benefits of the proposal are insufficient to outweigh this harm.
The proposal is therefore contrary to contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), Policies D3
and HC1 of The London Plan (2021), Policy GR1 and HE1 of the Harrow Local Plan (2021-2041)
1
- Option 1: The proposed development, notwithstanding amendments to reduce its bulk and height and the
introduction of a pitched roof, would result in an incongruous and poorly integrated form of development that
would be at odds with the character and proportions of the existing dwelling. The pitched roof, although
intended to reduce visual impact, would appear awkward and unbalanced and would fail to relate satisfactorily
to the host building.
The development would remain visually dominant and would continue to erode the important first floor visual
gap between adjoining properties, harming the established pattern of development, sense of spaciousness
and character of the area. Furthermore, the proposal would continue to compromise key views through this
gap towards the Grade II* listed Church of St John the Baptist and the Pinner High Street Conservation Area,
resulting in less than substantial harm to the significance of these heritage assets, as previously identified by
the Planning Inspector in the dismissed appeal (Ref: APP/M5450/W/25/3366424).
The proposal is therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) Policies D3 and HC1 of
the London Plan (2021), and Policies GR1 and HE1 of Harrow Local Plan (2021-2041)
2
- Option 2: The proposed development, notwithstanding amendments to reduce its overall bulk and height,
remains unacceptable as it would result in an Incongruous form of development that fails to respect the
character and appearance of the host dwelling and the established spatial pattern of development within the
street. The proposal would continue to erode the important first floor visual gap between buildings,
undermining the sense of spaciousness that characterises the area and contributing to a perception of
enclosure. Furthermore, the scale, massing and roof form would remain poorly integrated with the existing
dwelling, resulting in a development that would appear disproportionate and harmful within the street scene.
In addition, the proposal would fail to preserve the setting of nearby designated heritage assets, particularly
the Grade II* listed Church of St John the Baptist and the Pinner High Street Conservation Area. By
diminishing key views through the existing gap between properties, the development would continue to cause
less than substantial harm to the significance of these heritage assets, harm which was previously identified
and afforded considerable weight by the Planning Inspector in the dismissed appeal (Ref:
APP/M5450/W/25/3366424). The limited public benefits of the proposal are insufficient to outweigh this harm.
The proposal is therefore contrary to contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), Policies D3
and HC1 of The London Plan (2021), Policy GR1 and HE1 of the Harrow Local Plan (2021-2041)
Policies cited
D3HC1GR1HE1NPPF
Public response
Comment counts were not captured for this application.
People
Who is involved?
Name
Role
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer — delegated decision
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer — delegated decision
Place
What affects it?
Context around the site — not part of this application. Designations over the site: use the map's designations filter (conservation areas, listed buildings, Article 4, flood risk …). Decisions within 250 metres of the site are listed below — context, not this application.
Other applications within 250 metres (context — nearby, not this application)
No other geocoded decision is recorded within 250 metres.